Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Book Review: Men on Strike

With the publication of Men on Strike, Dr. Helen Smith fires an important shot in the ongoing cultural war for the soul, and indeed, the survival, of Western Civilization. It is a shot she fires in defense of the defenders, in defense of the barricades, in defense of the gates, against the lawless barbarians marching under the banner of the Female Imperative.

If the horror stories and red pill realities she chronicles will not be unfamiliar to those who are regular readers of the androsphere, they are nevertheless particularly effective when presented, largely dispassionately, one after another in succession. Dr. Helen does an competent job of drawing clear links between a legal regime biased towards women and the fearful behavior of men who no longer see sufficient incentive to perform the roles that society has long expected and required of them.

Men on Strike is particularly effective when pointing out the shameless hypocrisy of feminist activism, and how the voices that are quick to appeal to equality when it benefits women are completely silent when it is the male sex that is getting the short side of the stick. And it raises what is arguably the most important question of all: how can a society which actively disincentivizes men to marry, father children, and produce the economic surplus required to support women and children expect to survive, let alone thrive?

Dr. Helen begins the book with considering the question of why men are increasingly reluctant to marry, as evidenced by both national statistics and personal anecdotes. She continues with a presentation of the hypocrisy of the present legal approach to children and parenting, then moves on to the recent inversion of the male/female ratio of college attendance. After considering the way marriage has changed in recent decades, she then explains why these changes matter, and devotes the final chapter to considering whether men are best advised to continue simply opting out of society or attempting to fight back.

While much of the evidence is anecdotal, it must be noted that the anecdotal evidence is largely presented in an explanatory sense and is primarily used to support the statistical evidence. As such, it is much more valid than anecdotal evidence cited in support of hypothetical trends.

Possibly the best thing about Men on Strike is that at no point does Dr. Helen attempt to speak for men or tell men what they should do. She is quite clearly cognizant of the fact that she is speaking out in support of men, she is attempting to encourage them to speak out themselves rather than to speak for them.

Unlike other books that purport to be concerned about the societal degradation of men, Dr. Helen's book is not driven by the Female Imperative. She is aware that the degradation of men is not likely to serve women well in the long run, but she also opposes that legal and social degradation in its own right. In her words: "I propose that men are autonomous beings who are entitled to justice and equality and the pursuit of their own happiness because they are human beings in a supposedly free society."

Dr. Helen's book is both courageous and important because it is written by a woman. It cannot be dismissed as male whining or a parthian shot by the Patriarchy, and it is rhetorically effective because it breaks the Pink Code of Silence and shames those women who, in the name of equality, have pursued an inequality more oppressive and deadly than has been personally experienced by any woman of the West. It will be a valuable resource for anyone, male or female, who cares about the fate of men or the fate of Western civilization.

Text sample: Our society, the media, the government, women, white knights and Uncle Tims have regulated and demanded that any incentives men have for acting like men be taken away and decried masculinity as evil. Now they are seeing the result. Men have been listening to what society has been saying about them for more than forty years; they are perverts, wimps, cowards, assholes, jerks, good-for-nothing, bumbling deadbeats and expendable. Men got the message; now they are acting accordingly. As you sow, so shall you reap.So now people are surprised when men are heading for the exits? They shouldn’t be surprised. Men have been pushed there for some time. We should actually be surprised that it has taken so long.

The Concordia is just a microcosm of what is happening in our greater society. Men are opting out, bailing out and going on strike in response to the attack on their gender; a society can’t spend more than forty years tearing down almost half of the population and expect them to respond with “give me another” forever. Pretty soon, a lot more men will be taking Captain Schettino’s lead and jumping ship—only it will be on a lot larger scale than a boatload of people. The war on men is suicidal for our society in so many ways, and treating men like the enemy is dangerous, both to men and to the society that needs their positive participation as fathers, husbands, role models and leaders.

NB: In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that in the first chapter of the book, Dr. Helen refers to the socio-sexual hierarchy I developed from Roissy's sexual hierarchy.

I don't know if the Concordia disaster is the best example. After all the harbourmaster did shame him into returning to his duty. Maybe that is what Western man needs. We need to be shamed back to protecting the civilization we built regardless of the caterwauling of a few fanatical feminists.

anon123, you're missing the point of Concordia. It's not the harbor master shaming the captain back to his duty but all the men on the boat who decided "Ehh, women in children first doesn't seem like a great idea"

Whats funny about the whole thing is that most of us are happy to not have the role of head of household anymore. We get laid when we can, work a chill job, and get rid of a woman if it doesn't work out... not having to support her when she is older and less attractive. Thanks feminism!

Scott, had he acted like a man and led from the front, none of the others would have left. They would have stayed and done their duty. Then again, if he had been a competent officer in the first place, this incident would never had occurred.

One may take as advisory a culture that has marginalized the female half of its population - predatory Islam. One that has marginalized the male half will have made itself prey. If the imagination is blind to that dynamic, see England (bi-cultural sexual grooming) and Sweden-Norway (bi-cultural rape epidemic). Invest in pepper spray ladies - better still, outlawed .9 mm, best of all, outlawed men.

Whats funny about the whole thing is that most of us are happy to not have the role of head of household anymore. We get laid when we can, work a chill job, and get rid of a woman if it doesn't work out... not having to support her when she is older and less attractive. Thanks feminism!

I doubt it's most men, but certainly a sizable minority.

So much for marriage being an oppressive-to-women institution. Listen to the Dr. Laura show sometime to see examples of what Marky Mark is talking about and how ridiculous the idea of traditional marriage being oppressive to women is. A young broad called in the other day wondering what she could do to motivate her live-in stud to do his share. She was shacking up with this dude, giving him free sex, working a full-time job to pay her share of the bills, and picking up the slack with the rent after he quit his job to stay home and play video games all day. This guy had it made in the shade. Dr. Laura ripped her a new one, and said that at least prostitutes get paid for servicing a guy, and here she was essentially paying him. Is there any doubt this guy will dump her as soon as she becomes inconvenient or a better model comes along? Sure, there's Female Imperative, but in reality how are women any better off in this scenario, which they've constructed from the ashes of the institution they effectively burned down?

It should be obvious by now that marriage protects women. I guess that's one irony men can savor, however bitterly: feminism has ultimately gotten women exactly the opposite of what they ostensibly wanted. And all it cost was civilization.

I'm also interested to see if aunt giggles will mention this book at all.

Doubtful...I'd certainly bet against it especially since she continues to regress back in the Blue Pill direction and the Female Imperative. As an aside question...Vox...I'm curious if you mean something materially different with your use of Female Imperative versus Rollo's use of Feminine Imperative. I know sometime back there was a debate involving Dalrock and Social Pathologist as to the existence of a "feminine imperative". I'd be interested to get your take on what exactly you mean by Female Imperative.

Back to the question above, Susan's official position is there is no marriage strike or man strike especially amongst Millennial men who she maintains want marriage and family *MORE* than their Millennial women counterparts.

"Back to the question above, Susan's official position is there is no marriage strike or man strike especially amongst Millennial men who she maintains want marriage and family *MORE* than their Millennial women counterparts."

She's either extremely delusional or living in a very small bubble. Maybe both.

Sure, there's Female Imperative, but in reality how are women any better off in this scenario, which they've constructed from the ashes of the institution they effectively burned down?

It should be obvious by now that marriage protects women. I guess that's one irony men can savor, however bitterly: feminism has ultimately gotten women exactly the opposite of what they ostensibly wanted. And all it cost was civilization.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".

Just thinking out loud here, but it occurs to me I can't think of many female Chess grandmasters, and I wonder if it is because the female brain might be more wired to be in the moment rather than think several steps ahead as to what the consequences of certain decisions will be especially in terms of the likely reactions from others. Whether sexual liberation/empowerment, joining the workforce en masse, or higher rates of initiated divorce, it seems to me the common factor is a complete inability to anticipate the likely eventual male response. Many of the female complaints...."he won't commit", "he won't do his share of the housework now that I work full-time", etc. all seem to stem from failing to understand how men would behave in the face of a different incentive structure.

Perhaps the newest development on this front which is something Bastiat Blogger highlighted on HUS is men desiring wives who are also high earners and who will work and not be SAHM wives. That way, in the event of a "I'm not haaaapppy" divorce you have a more equitable split of financial assets. Of course, raising children, working full-time, and still keeping house to the higher standard that women generally want compared to men should be a recipe for increased happiness for women

Perhaps the newest development on this front which is something Bastiat Blogger highlighted on HUS is men desiring wives who are also high earners and who will work and not be SAHM wives. That way, in the event of a "I'm not haaaapppy" divorce you have a more equitable split of financial assets.

That's only a very small subset of men and women who have that option.

That's exactly my point... there is NOTHING in it for men and regarding civilization... that's not my personal problem. It is funny that what women wanted ended up screwing them over. BTW I am agnostic.

Re Susan Walsh, her continued regression back to the blue pill is nothing short of remarkable. She denies the existence of the apex fallacy, insisting that if a woman is getting with a man or is dating him or married to him, well, she must be attracted to him! She says she is just not seeing women getting with men they aren't attracted to.

The question at hand, though, is whether there is a "men on strike" issue or a "marriage strike". I don't really see it, because the stats are showing at least in the U.S. that most people are still getting married. Dalrock has done yeoman's work on this.

-- Something on the order of 90% of women have been married at least once by age 40.

-- about 80% of women are married by age 35.

-- the average age at first marriage is creeping upward and has been for about 30 years.

I can only surmise that the primary reason most of the men marrying these women are doing so for one reason: to lock in a sex partner. Most men are not attractive and cannot live the player lifestyle. Their options are severely limited. The vast majority of men will never be anything like cads or players. And most men do not want to live in celibacy.

Whatever is happening, though, is happening very, very slowly, and has been for a long time. And all this is going to continue for a long time, probably for at least the next 30 to 50 years or so, barring a cataclysmic event of some kind.

I suspect what we'll see is:

-- the birth rate continuing to crater well below replacement-- more and more MGTOW, never-married men (slowly increasing)-- increasing numbers of never married women-- the divorce rate to creep up and hold steady above 50 percent-- more and more women marrying men clearly beneath them in socioeconomic status-- fewer and fewer second marriages after termination of first marriage through divorce or widowhood

The problem is, it's cr*p. Men are still working like slaves. They have simply lowered the frenzied and lunatic work loads a very very very small amount. They demand far less than any man with any self respect would demand and are willing to settle for less.

They just aren't quite as frenzied as they used to be in their efforts to please.

Maybe that is what Western man needs. We need to be shamed back to protecting the civilization we built...

Nah, what men need to be shamed back into is behaving like men. MarkyMark's comment about leeching off of society as a response is a perfect example of shameful behavior. Doubly-shameful actually. One, he's not contributing shit to the world around him while taking from it, and two, he has the gall to justify his behavior because somebody else is being unfair.

He's a creature of the Female Imperative just as much as Leena Dunham is. Both deserve contempt.

We're in a post-civilized phase right now. Our old civilization is done, we've gone past the point of recovering it. There will be a train wreck (we're in the middle of it right now in fact). Afterwards, somebody will build a new civilization on top of the wreckage. It won't be Feminists or their pet dildos who build it.

It'll be built by men who are able to triumph over adversity rather than run from it.

The real danger highlighted by Dr. Helen's book is that we're training far too many men to run from adversity. We've created an environment with too much negative feedback and not enough opportunities for men to have the small triumphs that give them the confidence to tackle larger challenges.

The danger is that will leave us without a critical mass of men who can rebuild our civilization. Without that, it will be someone else's civilization that builds upon our rubble.

Sigyn, not all of the men dropping out are genetic rejects. I have a friend who is intelligent, fit, good looking, and is actually interesting and competent in conversation. He has women sighing after him, to the point that he has actually complained about women bothering him. We were talking, and the subject of women and marriage, and he told me that he can take care of himself just fine, why would he need a wife? It is not only the lowest tier of men walking out. Some of them are high quality, and it is a loss to the species to see them go. I know several others with the same mentality, and my job requires high intelligence. These smart, motivated young men have gotten a look and are willing to cad about or just wander away rather than marry.

Selection pressures are only positive if they are selecting against negative traits. When intelligent men are washing out, that is a problem. Idiocracies burn themselves out in an ever deepening spiral of poor choices and fool voices.

However, I agree that some of the changes are positive. Sometime you need to rake the leaves out of the gene pool, and pour in some chlorine.

Nah, what men need to be shamed back into is behaving like men. MarkyMark's comment about leeching off of society as a response is a perfect example of shameful behavior. Doubly-shameful actually. One, he's not contributing shit to the world around him while taking from it, and two, he has the gall to justify his behavior because somebody else is being unfair.

A real man asks himself upon being mistreated how he can please those who mistreat him even more.

You keep talking about intelligence like it correlates to the ability to make good decisions, when they're really two very different things. Obviously, we should breed for prudence and future-orientation; that's why it's good that so many of these GTOW-oriented "smart" guys are removing themselves. They have no future orientation and they're wildly unrealistic in their expectations.

I have a friend who is intelligent, fit, good looking, and is actually interesting and competent in conversation. He has women sighing after him, to the point that he has actually complained about women bothering him. We were talking, and the subject of women and marriage, and he told me that he can take care of himself just fine, why would he need a wife?

Does it occur to you that he might be gay? I don't know that many straight men who are annoyed by female attention.

These smart, motivated young men have gotten a look and are willing to cad about or just wander away rather than marry.

Sociopathy is another thing we want to eliminate, wouldn't you say? So, that's a good thing.

Selection pressures are only positive if they are selecting against negative traits.

An inability/unwillingness to breed is a negative trait.

When intelligent men are washing out, that is a problem.

Not really. Excessively high intelligence is a negative trait, just like excessively low intelligence. Both tend to interfere with making solid, practical decisions. And right now, we need solid, practical, decisive men.

Idiocracies burn themselves out in an ever deepening spiral of poor choices and fool voices.

Does it occur to you that this is because allegedly "intelligent" people make poor choices and are talking like fools? The whole leftward drift of society was based on the notion that "smart people should rule" (see, for instance, Woodrow Wilson). So you guys want to cause the collapse and then run away while the rest of us are stuck with the mess you left?

Nope, you guys are a genetic dead-end, both in practice (refusal to breed) and in theory (behave in community-destroying ways). We'd be better served with more solid, reliable, average men who don't get funny ideas than with bunches of extreme-IQ misfits who think they're owed a voice in the conversation just because "I'm so smart, S-M-R-T!"

nope... pretty funny that I picked this as my username though... I guess mark wahlberg is an alpha that we aspire to LOL

Sociopathy is another thing we want to eliminate, wouldn't you say? So, that's a good thing.

Are men sociopaths for opting out of a bad system? I don't think so... IMO that makes me smart.

@AnonymousMost men are not attractive and cannot live the player lifestyle. Their options are severely limited. The vast majority of men will never be anything like cads or players. And most men do not want to live in celibacy.

This is so true! Even if you are an attractive guy you still have to play the numbers game and deal with b/s... I feel bad for the unattractive dudes.

I think there is a marriage strike. But it's not necessarily by young men. It's by young women in their 20's who want education, career and fun over other priorities. Look at how the radfems and just plain feminists have shamed women out of wanting relationships and needing to be loyal to the career-minded feminist herd.

Now, I think that there may start to be a marriage strike to a certain extent by those single men that hit 30+ (plus some divorced men who say never again).

The age of first marriage has slowly risen but look at Dalrock's charts and how the never married white female percentage really took a greater leap up, rising from 39% in 2007 to 47.5% in 2012 for 25-29 y/o white females, from 18.5% to 25.1% for 30-34 y/o wf's, and from 11.4% to 15.4% for 35-39 y/o wf's.

The fascinating thing is that the rise in never married white females coincided more or less with the rise of the manosphere. I think something may be up that only really started to happen in mass over the last 5 years (though it was slowly building beforehand).

Yeah, there is a significant bump up in never married women. But it's too early to tell if that is going to be significant or if the trend will continue.

I agree that if there is a "strike", women are driving it and men are responding to it. The MSM paints it as a male-driven phenomenon but I don't think it is. I agree women are putting off marriage until later and later. What I find surprising is that most of them are still finding men to marry. Granted, almost certainly the men they are marrying are not of the caliber they could have had had they married earlier. And this, I think, is a major source of many women's disappointments. Because the men they really want -- the alphas a year or three older -- are married to younger, hotter, tighter women, or will not offer commitment because they don't have to trade commitment for sex.

My response to some of your comments. I agree with some of your comments and disagree with others but am not trying to be a dick in pointing out the disagreements:

"-- Something on the order of 90% of women have been married at least once by age 40."

This is a backward looking statistic (as all stats of things that happened are by definition) to an era when more people got married. See my previous comment about what is happening with the younger cohorts and the rather dramatic rise in the never married wf's from 2007-2012.

"I can only surmise that the primary reason most of the men marrying these women are doing so for one reason: to lock in a sex partner. Most men are not attractive and cannot live the player lifestyle. Their options are severely limited. The vast majority of men will never be anything like cads or players. And most men do not want to live in celibacy."

I agree with this. I think that a lot of men will still end up marrying to get the steady sex partner but a lot of them are less enthusiastic to get a 35 y/o wife on the downward beauty trend as opposed to one at or near her peak with a lot of good years ahead at 20-25.

"Whatever is happening, though, is happening very, very slowly, and has been for a long time. And all this is going to continue for a long time, probably for at least the next 30 to 50 years or so, barring a cataclysmic event of some kind."

See the Dalrock link again for the rapid rise from 2007-2012.

"I suspect what we'll see is:-- more and more MGTOW, never-married men (slowly increasing)"

I agree with this. For so long women thought that betas (in their various Vox flavors) and lower alphas would always just be there to have them when they were ready for marriage, even though they were no longer availing themselves for marriage as much during their prime-female-value years. The female herd calls the shots for most men and men are slow to react but they are finally starting to (slowly) realize that they've been rejected and treated poorly and will not just "be there" for women to marry as much anymore. Until the misandry is healed in society, more and more men (though likely still a minority) will check out from signing up for a raw deal and will spend more time pursuing casual sex with lower value women that they can attract.

"-- increasing numbers of never married women"

I also agree with this. It will be interesting to see if the sharp uptrend in never-marrieds from 2007-12 continues and for how long. I think there is and will be some reaction by young women to realize that they need to pursue marriage earlier while they're at their top value. But there will also be inertia in men who have adapted to a more player or MGTOW mindset and so there won't just be as many men as before waiting on bended knee with ring in hand for the women to come back from their fun and career focus.

I'm not sure about this. The divorce rate peaked at around 40% and seems like the eventual divorce rate for the gen y and x cohort will be more in the 30-35% range. Part of this is due to the fact that many people who would make poor marriage partners aren't getting married anymore and simply cohabiting, which has higher break-up rates. So, the overall picture isn't really getting better if you include both, but it's not getting worse either.

"-- more and more women marrying men clearly beneath them in socioeconomic status"

In today's society where men are marginalized in school and university, women are starting to earn more and more. I believe amongst single younger women they actually earn a bit more than men now.

With the divorce laws such that you split acquired assets roughly equally then it makes sense for men to seek higher-earning women and not kill themselves as much to earn a lot. Of course, a lot of other factors are in play but I personally am leary of marrying someone that doesn't make at least high 5-figures since I don't want there to be a big divorce prize sitting there as an incentive (however small) to tempt her.

"-- fewer and fewer second marriages after termination of first marriage through divorce or widowhood"

I agree with this. Once burnt, men (and women with abusive husbands too) will not want to tempt fate again as much.

I think that the women waiting to marry til their mid 30's or later are really putting themselves in a bind since they have such little bargaining power anymore. You can also see that in the Dalrock stats how only 1/6 30-34 y/o wf's in 2007 married by 2012 when they moved into the 35-39 y/o cohort.

So, by having this big cohort of late 20's women put off marriage they put themselves into more dangerous waters where their attractiveness and ability to attract a husband have declined.

Whether intentional or not, the focus of feminists on getting women to delay marriage during their most attractive and fertile years really serves the feminist imperative of pushing and keeping more women in the work place.

First of all, if they delay marriage (and hence, kids) they work longer and get more education which raises the collective female power careerwise.

Then by having them delay the search until their less attractive, fewer of them will be able to marry. Those that don't marry will continue to work and enhance feminist goals.

Those that do marry late will be less likely to have more than a kid or two and some will have none and so with few or no kids, what do the women do? They work more, thus furthering the feminist goal of achieving economic, career and political power.

Re the stats for ever-married women at ages 35 and 40: yes, they are backward looking. And they are also a snapshot of women who have ever been married at any time. So it includes women currently married, divorced, and widowed. It's just a statistic showing the percentage of women who were able to find someone willing to marry her and they got married. The point is that a woman who wants to get married can, for the time being, find a man who wants to marry her. The issue is whether she is attracted to the pool of men willing to marry her.

As for the rapid rise in never married women: when I say that all this is happening slowly, what I mean is that I suspect the pattern of behavior we're seeing in marriage is going to continue on its present course and that any change we see will happen slowly. IOW, i think the age of first marriage will continue creeping up for men and women. I think most women will still be able to find men to marry them even at 30, 33, 35, and 40, and I think that will continue for at least a few decades. The women are making the men wait; and for the most part, the men are waiting. The number of men willing to wait is decreasing, though, albeit slowly. For the time being, most divorced men will remarry (though that figure will decrease slowly).

Okay, I see your overall point. I just wanted to point out that the sharper rise in the 25-39 y/o never married rate over the last 5 years was a trend worth noting, and that there will be carry-over effects for the women choosing to marry later since we see by Dalrock's presentation that only small %'s of women in the older cohorts marry by 5 years later (2007 to 2012).

This will definitely be an interesting trend to see if the slope stays the same or changes as each new year's data (2013, 14, 15, etc.) comes out.

At some point I suppose the current steep slope of the last 5 years will flatten out somewhat since I don't expect to ever get to a 100% never-married rate for 25-29 y/o wf's.

RE the divorce rate creeping up and holding steady above 50% nationwide: You might be right about this. Generally the upper middle class and upper classes get married and stay married because those in these classes who divorce take a big status hit. And these are the people who are most suited to marriage (higher future time orientation and maturity, more access to resources) but ironically can best absorb the financial consequences of divorce.

Those who are the worst marriage prospects (the underclass, the working poor and the lower middle classes) are as you say increasingly not marrying. But, my conclusion of an increasing overall divorce rate was that the incentive for these groups to divorce (if they marry) is greater than ever. They simply don't have to stay married and have no real reason to; and probably shouldn't have married in the first place.

You're going to see a lot more alternative arrangements to marriage: including covenant marriage and cohabitation (i.e. common law marriage). Many states abolished common law marriage; but to protect the female imperative I think you'll see the law catch up to this and many states will probably reinstate it. The female imperative will not stand for men attempting to circumvent "obligations" to women they have sex with or shack up with or become baby daddies to.

(Common law marriage was a legal doctrine which essentially said that "If it walks, looks and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." In other words, if a man and woman are living together and holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife for a specified period of time (usually at least 5 years), then for all intents and purposes the law will treat them as if they had a full statutory legal marriage.)

Another thing to consider re a rising divorce rate: The broad swathed "middle class" or "middle middle class" is starting to see an uptick in divorces, I think. So I suspect that the trends in higher divorce rates among the classes below the MMC are moving up into the MMC as the MMC lifestyle and culture (1) disappears due to economic trends and (2) mimics the lifestyle and culture of the classes below it.

deti, I think economic collapse will push a big reset button on all this. Our current institutions are all wobbling and very few have the stability or strength to survive the economic shocks that are at this point unavoidable. Within the next decade, 15 years at the longest, we will see a dramatic change in political power.

I don't know what exactly we will have on the other side of that change, but I'm pretty sure Feminism will not be a major player in it.

Many of the women dropping out are psychologically unfit to reproduce.

Absolutely. Bitches be crazy. So those who were too weak to resist the conditioning die out, and we're all stronger. Of course, this means that the parasites will meet with fewer willing hosts, but that's the Circle of Life.

And the men that drop out can always get back in the reproductive game later (except for some of the vasectomy dudes).

The marriage rate is declining quite rapidly, if you look at the latest cohorts. Within the past five years alone, the percent of women in their late 20s who were married decreased by ~8%. This is massive when one considers how even a small change in ratios can heavily skew such a market. This change will cascade onwards, as older women have to increasingly compete with younger women.

As for divorce rates, they're probably going to hold steady at around 50%. It's too early to tell what the eventual divorce rates for today's couples will be, but the latest 10 year separation rate is 30-35%.

I had a big debate at HUS with megaman about divorce rates. When you look at the census rates of ever divorced divided by ever married you get about 40% for boomers. The younger cohorts came in lower, in part because they haven't had time to reach their eventual-divorce rate but by looking at another study that compared divorce rates in 2010 with 1990 you could see that late gen-x and gen-y divorce rates were lower than the boomers when at the same age 20 years earlier, implying, if all else were equal (which it's not since people marry later now) that the eventual divorce rates will be somewhat lower for late gen-x and gen-y, I would guess somewhere in the 35% level. If you're really curious I can show you the links but I don't really want to get into a long discussion on divorce projections.

The bottom line is that the 50% rate often quoted is erroneous because they just took divorces in one year divided by marriage in one year, instead of figuring out the lifetime rate of divorce, which turns out to be about 40% for boomers and likely a bit lower for gen-x and y but, who knows, time will tell.

This all came about because megaman was claiming that frivolous divorce could be no more than 5% of all men. However, he was being misleading by taking all "men" 15 y/o and older as the denominator (1/3 of whom had never even been married yet) and using ever-divorced (and by definition, only those that had married at least once) as the numerator. He was comparing apples and oranges. On top of this, he assumed, IMO, too high a rate of bad male behavior causing divorce.

I pointed out that including teen boys and other men who had never been married in order to make the phenomenon smaller was misleading, that the focus should be only on men who had married. This, of course, made the denominator smaller by 1/3, raising the overall estimate by 50%.

And then if you look at the eventual divorce rate (to allow time for some of those who have been married a short time to divorce) instead of of just those who are currently ever divorced then it raised the rate even further. So, instead of a 5% upper limit, it was more like a 9% upper limit of all men who had married and lived long enough for most of their likelihood of divorce to have happened. This all taking at face value his other assumptions, which were questionable.

Those numbers were based on him assuming that 8/13 or more of female-initiated divorces were based on bad male behavior, something I disagreed with.

A more reasonable assumption, that only 1/2 the female-initiated divorces were due to bad male behavior (and so, not frivolous) would lead to a 12% rate of ever-married men being frivorced, eventually.

Other assumptions could drive the rate even higher, upwards of 20% of all ever-married men.

My best estimate was somewhere in the 12-15% of all ever-married men would ever be divorced due to bad wife behavior (either frivolous reasons or outright cheating, etc. on her part), with 10-20% seeming like good lower and upper limits.

Or, another way of looking at it would be that anywhere from 25% to 50% of divorces would be due to bad/frivolous wife behavior and the rest due to mutually bad behavior or frivolity as a middle ground or outright bad/frivolous husband behavior.

I don't know that I agree with you that economic collapse is inevitable in the next 15 years. Shit, we've been economically wobbly since I was a high school student in the early to mid 1980s. It's been bad for 30 years and we've kicked that can down the road for that long.

I suspect it's just going to limp along as is for a good while, as the Chinese continue to prop up our economy.

I think economic collapse will happen, but not in 15 years; and I think it will be accompanied with massive and widespread civil unrest and/or foreign invasion. Think the fall of Rome and barbarians at the gates.

Sigyn, consider this point of view: the entirety of our society is involved in exploiting some of these men, either with action or by silent consent. You direct your government and choose its officers and its marching orders. Saying that someone is mentally damaged because they have been intentionally abandoned by the society at large strips their concerns of merit. It allows you to ignore their concerns. It is an aesthetic solution, not a practical one.

Having no concern for the well being of Islamist terrorists does not make me a sociopath. In the same way, having that lack of concern extend to American citizens is not the cause of effect of a personality disorder. It is the rational response to abuse.

A man who does not feed his family because he carelessly burned himself on the stove is acting irresponsibly. A man who does not feed his family because his family holds his hand to the flame whenever he enters the kitchen is being prudent. No, instead he says cook or starve.

the entirety of our society is involved in exploiting some of these men, either with action or by silent consent.

And you're going to go off and openly consent to being exploited.

Your point of view needs glasses. Sorry.

It allows you to ignore their concerns.

Nope. It allows me to understand why their reaction to their concerns is destructive instead of constructive. It's because they choose not to care, clinging to the OMG HORRIBLE THINGS that were done to SOMEONE ELSE as an excuse to contribute nothing and be nothing.

See, some people can be helped. Others are happy to be helpless. And some pretend to be helpless so they can help themselves to whatever they want.

It is the rational response to abuse.

Next you're going to talk about how you were raped by the system. God, I hate teenage angst.

A man who does not feed his family because his family holds his hand to the flame whenever he enters the kitchen is being prudent.

A man who deliberately seeks out people who are going to burn his hand over the stove, on the other hand (oops pun), is an idiot.

It is the difference between being exploited by the most vile and decadent society that has ever existed--one that would shock Nero and Caligula--and voluntarily serving a more honorable and moral society. Pledging my service is not submitting to slavery, something you seem unable to understand. Emergency services and medical personnel *service* the community, and by doing so, strengthen it. They are not slaves, even though they serve. Slaves are property, however valuable they may be. Servants are free men. I choose to serve, to acknowledge something else as greater than myself.

As far as the complaint that MGTOW are tearing down your society, that is the point. Feature, not bug, and the like. Your people have been building on the backs of the dead, and bone is not a good foundation. Your society is *built* on and out of destruction, an abomination of blood and dust. The best thing that could happen to it would be to collapse into the pit of its own making. Destruction is part of the cycle of civilization, and your final hour is fast approaching.

The profound intelligence that you mock allows me options and opportunities most men will never know. I am not perfect, but I am a lot closer than many others. That is why I am abandoning the people that tend to burn those they need the most.

The thing is I MYSELF have dated girls who completely fucked over guys for no good reason and acted crazy every time they didn't get their way... yes some were hot but still it wasn't worth it... Also I have multiple friends that are divorced and the woman left THEM for the stupidest of reasons, these are guys that have their shit together. I am speaking from personal experience and that of my close friends, women can't act psycho and then wonder why they are single they need to take some responsibility.

Carlotta, I do not think so. He does not have that air about him. I had considered that, but it does not fit with my sense of him. Perhaps annoyed was a poor word choice. Confused, or maybe perturbed would be better. He is still blue pill, so their behavior seems strange to him.

BTW I'm 28 y/o and have some good experience dating... Another thing is the women my age are SIGNIFICANTLY less attractive then when they were younger and give off a bitchy vibe b/c of it, they must be mad someone didn't put up with their bitchiness and wife them up haha.

@Sigyn,Have you started writing for Jezebel? Because between gaining 30lbs and the snark and disrespect you are directing towards the men in this comment section, it makes you indistinguishable from them.

Marky Marky wrote: "Whats funny about the whole thing is that most of us are happy to not have the role of head of household anymore. We get laid when we can, work a chill job, and get rid of a woman if it doesn't work out... not having to support her when she is older and less attractive. Thanks feminism!"

For me "leeching off society" = being a parasite living off the welfare state with no intention of getting a real job or paying society back

I don't know that I agree with you that economic collapse is inevitable in the next 15 years. Shit, we've been economically wobbly since I was a high school student in the early to mid 1980s. It's been bad for 30 years and we've kicked that can down the road for that long.

I suspect it's just going to limp along as is for a good while, as the Chinese continue to prop up our economy.

Deti, sounds like we're about the same age. I graduated HS in 84. Yes, the economy has been wobbly for a while (I'd say more like 40 years, I grew up in a logging town and the Carter years were pretty brutal). But the US started the 70's with massive capital reserves, and I don't mean money, I mean infrastructure, capacity, workforce skill.

We had a huge manufacturing base, excellent transportation network (road, rail and marine), energy production and distribution, water supply, skilled workers to run and repair everything. Plus most of the rest of the world figured we were a safe place to invest their own surplus, so we could tap into all of that.

Most of that can-kicking involved burning through all that, including the confidence other countries had in us. We don't have much cushion left. The outright deposit theft going on in Europe is one of the signs of that. Within 15 years, we will have gone essentially the entire span of an adult's working life drawing down on our reserves and not replenishing anything.

You go broke slowly at first, then all at once. All at once is coming.

THANK YOU! I never said to 'leech off society' I have no idea where anyone got that. What I mean is to work smart and not get married to some used up skank down the line who will leech off of you. I also mean that find a career that suits you and don't slave away at a job you hate for some overpriced piece of pussy.

I believe they are referring to enjoying the benefits of civilization without perpetuating it into the next generation. By not building the foundation for the future, you are not doing your part. A slaveowner's view of the world, where part of your property belongs to others, extracted by force. You "owe" society whatever it can extract from you, and you get no say in this obligation.

These smart, motivated young men have gotten a look and are willing to cad about or just wander away rather than marry.

Sociopathy is another thing we want to eliminate, wouldn't you say? So, that's a good thing.

There is a huge error you people are making here! What part of "cadding about" is incompatible with reproduction?! Have you had a look at all the "single mom's" on OkCupid? Where the hell and who the hell do you think papa is?

Cadding about is a perfectly valid reproductive strategy, just not one that is conducive to civilization.

For me "leeching off society" = being a parasite living off the welfare state with no intention of getting a real job or paying society back

I don't see what Marky Mark wrote as "leeching off society."

Working a chill job?

Well, maybe we have different ideas of leeching, but the society Marky and the Feminists are busy under-maintaining didn't just happen, and won't just spontaneously recreate itself. It's going to take people, sorry, let me be more accurate - it's going to take men to make it all work again.

Otherwise, my grandkids will be enslaved by some other crapass civilization, and I don't want that.

So I need allies who didn't look at adversity and decide "working a chill job" was the right way to deal with it.

Jeebus, all these "men" paralyzed with fear over fat feminists and decrepit old men in black robes, what would they do if they found themselves face to face with Ragnar Lothbrok? He wouldn't even need to gut them, they'd shit their pants so hard half their bowels would prolapse out their rectum.

With the freedom young women have, things are pretty bad for the AFC these days, but that cat is never going back in the bag, at least not until Islam takes over. In the meantime, you AFCs, especially you bible thumping AFCs, have been given an opportunity: the opportunity to learn to understand women. The opportunity has always been there, but the incentives have not. What has changed is simply that. If you do not make the effort to understand them, you won't be able to get laid. It's as simple as that. Bellyaching that you don't have a societal mandate to chain your wife to the kitchen stove and use her as a baby making factory or for your own personal pleasure whenever you want just isn't going to help. Despite all the economic and civilizational disaster porn you guys like to project to each other, what really is going to happen is that men who remain clueless AFCs will be used as beasts of burden to uphold a living standard for women and for the men who can learn to overcome the present difficulties, by coming to understand women and use them to their advantage. The blueprint has even been provided (Game) but some men seem almost congenitally incapable of stepping outside themselves and seeing what needs to be seen. No matter, they will be the pack mules of the future, turning the gears and blowing their paychecks at brothels. What is coming is a meritocracy in love. It's ironic that most of you are die hard reactionaries, proponents of the most grim, austere economic systems devised, yet when it comes to the distribution of feminine love you are essentially socialists, because you know underneath the "traditional man" posturing that on their terms, in the arena of social charms and graces, you're just about incompetent, unable to compete. Some men probably just don't have the imagination, as some men don't have the physical strength or the intelligence that others do. Some amount of socialism is probably good.

Desert Cat, I am aware that they will reproduce in greater than proportional numbers. It is the negative effects on civilization that interests me the most. The point of that was not to say that they are removing themselves reproductively, but that they are not contributing/maintaining because of the incentives in place, and that several commenters are more involved in cursing the walkaways rather than fix the issues making walking away such an attractive option.

Jack Amok, you are acting out the Plataean strategy. You are appealing to their sense of justice, fair play, and honor, in a nation that has little to none, especially in its treatment of men. A better plan is to speak to self-interest. What does your grandchildren's freedom do for them? If you want allies, you need to bring something to the table besides words, or you risk abandonment when the going gets tough. Without a stake in the outcome, any erstwhile "allies" you manage to scrape together will, in reality, be mere mercenaries. This is unfortunate, but it is the world in which we live.

Oh, and I would ask him if he was hiring. I might have to kill a few of his men to get his attention, but that is just resume building, like an internship--only more brutal and violent. Fighting alongside a legend like Ragnar Lothbrok? That would be the life. Murdering and burning my way up and down the coasts of Europe, taking the pick of the women, and just raising hell for the hell of it for years? Too much fun to pass up. I imagine it might get old after a decade or two, but still, what an opportunity.

Jack Amok, you are acting out the Plataean strategy. You are appealing to their sense of justice, fair play, and honor, in a nation that has little to none, especially in its treatment of men.

Good God people are myopic. I'm not appealing to justice or fair play - I'm appealing to their sense of adventure, grandeur, to the masculine desire to be something.

You walk through the portals of adulthood with a Y chromosome and block and tackle between your legs to find some fugly feminist harpy screeching at you to get your nose to the grindstone and the reaction is "Hell no."

I'm with you so far.

But these MGOTW have so little imagination that they can't think of anything else to do but sit down and chant "you can't make me, la-la-la." Obviously contributing to the Feminist Imperative is the wrong thing to do, but saying "I'm taking my balls and going home" is a pretty fucking wimpy response.

Going on strike is a passive-aggressive response. It's for losers and pussies. Sure, it's better than blindly supporting Teh Evilz Wymyn, but are you really so unimaginative you can't envision a better option? A masculine one?

Aw, crap this is depressing. I need a drink. Nate, you got any Oban? Bulleit? Appleton 12 y/o rum?

Jack Amok, I might have mistook your meaning. I am not whining and bitching and walking home. I am taking my balls and going to play for another team, one that values competition and victory over inclusiveness and participation.

I am going to admit, I cannot get a wife and keep ahold of her in this day and age; I do not have what it takes. I have neither the patience nor the inclination to debase myself to the level necessary. Years of learning and practicing game and engaging in combat dating just to find a woman barely worth marriage by a sane metric? It is a waste of my valuable time, energy, and considerable talents. I will not sort through the detritus and filth in the ruins of this falling empire for the few good women left. The Work is too important to compete with a woman, and conversely, no woman is worth the distraction from the Work that she would represent.

Quite honestly, I can see little benefit to any course other than pursuit of scholastic and physical exceptionalism. What masculine paths are still passable? Corporate life is a feminist infested drag, success in politics is millions of negative character references, military is turning into a multicultural social services program with rifles, and any scientific discovery brings risk of professional annihilation should it prove to be uncomfortable. Any way you go about it, even if you emerge victorious, you are still propping up one of the most evil regimes to have ever existed upon the face of the earth. Either way, you lose.

SD, it is not that she is being a bully, it is the fact that her argument are worthless, so she is being a bitch to patch the gaps. Remember that whole thing, you know, the one where men do not like bitches? Being a bitch to guys who already consider you a mental cripple with little to no inherant moral agency is perhaps, just for the sake of argument, not the best way to make a point. You do not get girlpoints online, so you have to hack it on logical discussion alone. She sucks. To put it in perspective, the man pretending to be an insane god makes a more rational argument than his woman.

How do you think men should be dealing with the current situation? I understand and agree with your point about the coming collapse and the need for men to actively participate in rebuilding society, but thats in the future, and the estimating the exact timelines there is still guesswork. What do you suggest men should be doing NOW, especially considering that most of the traditional ways in which men would contribute to society are counter to a mans own best interest.

Learning how to work in teams. How to find value in teamwork, and how to find both pride in personal accomplishments and joy in shared triumphs.

Learning to reject the easy out. Strengthening their will, their drive, their desire to control their own fate.

The details will be different for each man. Different strengths and situations, I can't tell you exactly what form all this should take for any specific individual. But strive to shape the world around you. Don't just exist in it and accept the limited choices others offer. Being able to turn that vague notion into a concrete plan of action for yourself is one of the skills you need to have. If you don't have that skill now, develop it. Master the art of effective strategy, planning and execution with small things and build on that to master progressively more ambitious endeavors.

Also, the idea that women are impossible, that any marriage is doomed, that's nonsense. If you do the things above, if you are the Man With The Plan and you work to bend the world to you will, you won't have any trouble keeping a wife and raising your own kids.

Yes, it's hard work. Yes, society ought to give you more support. If it's any consolation, plenty of men throughout history have had it far worse. At least you don't have to worry about Vikings plundering your town and carrying your wife off as part of their booty. At least not yet anyway.

I'm sure it still seems kind of vague. Here's the best guiding light I can give. Live your life so as to matter to someone else. You don't have to do it according to the terms laid out by the Feminist Imperative, but you do need to matter to someone outside your own skin. You need to find something in this world greater than yourself that you care about and that you want to play a part in.

My question was largely intended to try and understand your position better, but your answer coincides pretty well with my current thinking with how to live life as a man. Im not at all keen to prop up the current status quo or to sacrifice my own effort for the benefit of parasites who hate me, but Im also not keen on becoming a parasite myself, or in giving up. I still have a drive to achieve, and for what I do to matter in some way. Food for thought.

I think the irony that's being lost here is that ONLY a woman could credibly write a book about this.

Dr. Helen's very point of the book is exemplified by the fact that only a 'she' could publish it and still retain any legitimacy. What she's detailing in the book is just a retread of the material written by Dalrock and many others with a specific interest in the socioeconomic consequences the feminine imperative has had on the marriage market.

She's not offering anything Dakrock hasn't (more statistically) already covered since 2009, but because she has a vagina her enumerations have more legitimacy in a world that is socially defined by the feminine imperative.

She may get the long knives of the sisterhood, but it's only because they'll pay attention due to her being a woman. Any man writing this book would be dismissed as a misogynist before the ink was dry on the first press run.

Nice try, but I specifically said I wouldn't CONTRIBUTE. Since when is bitchslapping Sheltered Schoolboy on my husband's request (in his absence) a contribution? You seem to think what my husband does is empty trolling, even when he's giving information of substance, so...

...Yeah. Go do to yourself what no woman seems to want to do. That goes for AR, too.

Nice try, but I specifically said I wouldn't CONTRIBUTE. Since when is bitchslapping Sheltered Schoolboy on my husband's request (in his absence) a contribution?

I might see this as a credible distinction if I squinted my eyes just the right way. Very well, I'll keep watching.

You seem to think what my husband does is empty trolling, even when he's giving information of substance, so...

Nope, it has its value in certain contexts. But it would be silly to try engaging in a serious discussion with someone who is playing a cartoon character, while he is doing so. If you do, the joke's on you.

...Yeah. Go do to yourself what no woman seems to want to do.

I understand how it might seem that way, but you'd be wrong about that.

SD,I didn't realize you were able to build a bridge to get off Whore Island. Well done enslaving the White Knights and Mangina's like that.

I find it hilarious that your husband continues to allow you to try to insult men and attempt to hold them accountable to your his ideals. But as you should know, you neither have the spiritual hierarchical authority nor the ability to wield verbal force sufficient to do either effectively. The petty pecking and snarking of a woman is no match for man who truly wants to shut and slam her down. The reason that hasn't happened here yet is because these men afford women the respect they would afford any other individual with whom they'd expect to have a reasonable discourse. But it is becomming apparent that the goal of reasonable discourse is much less attainable the more women stick their noses into things.

I followed that debate between Han and Megaman about frivorce. I confess I had trouble following the discussion of fractions and proportions at first but I eventually got there, I think. I'm not as smart as you guys.

I'm not at all convinced the proportion of female initiated frivorce is as small as Megaman concluded it was. I do think that you're probably right we're talking about 25% to 50% of divorces overall being due to bad wife behavior (usually adultery or abandonment) and frivorce.

But for sure, that remaining 50 % is some bad male behavior too.

What I object to is this minimization of frivorce as "not really a problem". I respectfully disagree with Susan and with Megaman that female frivorce is "not really a problem". Uh, it IS a problem -- a very, very big one. I have to believe that a wife leaving you for no reason other than that she can, and then ruining the husband financially in the process, is a big reason a lot of men are simply saying "No" to marriage.

MM and SK, you both keep talking about how women are not worth your time. Ok. What would make a women worth your time?

Because being that you are both heathens, it seems strange you have a problem with women being heathens as well. It is strange that you expect a Christian behavior out of non-Christian women. It is strange that you do not grasp that it is rare, therefore to be desired, therefor a women can take her pick our the most fit men. And that she determines this fitness.

Are you Christian? Because it is only by that God's standard that you could say that and she is forgiven by Him. Since HE is in charge of the standards and says she is forgiven and a new creature, who the hell are you to say otherwise?

If your are athetist or of any religion other then Islam then you are contridicting yourself by trying to shame her. That you deride her past is intolerant and oppressive.

So please provide the standard you are juding her by before we go any further.

As for the rest of your comment, if women are so below you in intellect it should cause you the vapors to deal with them on a little ol blog now should it?

The petty pecking and snarking of a woman is no match for man who truly wants to shut and slam her down. The reason that hasn't happened here yet is because these men afford women the respect they would afford any other individual with whom they'd expect to have a reasonable discourse. But it is becomming apparent that the goal of reasonable discourse is much less attainable the more women stick their noses into things.

Slam away dear, if you can. Sounds more like your precious sensiblities just can't handle anyone who doesn't tell you you are precious and perfect all the time.

Sounds more like your precious sensiblities just can't handle anyone who doesn't tell you you are precious and perfect all the time.

I think the reason for the rage we see amongst this bitter subset of mgtow is they know deep down cowardice has taken root. And when they get called out for being cowards, the pain burns them because there's some truth to the insult. Flat out lies will never hurt someone like the truth. If they weren't cowards, they wouldn't react so much when called out for it.

@Josh, I think you are right. There was some advice given here to a women who was overweight and afraid her Husband would cheat on her. Vox told her to rise to the level of the competition instead of living in fear. This was awesome advice!But you must be proactive. So much easier to complain on the internet.

SD,What's pathetic is your Brokeback husband sending his wife as his proxy.

And there ya go, shaming and attempting to flaunt your sexual power over me by insisting that my masculine value is determined by females. Aggressive and mean, you still do a pretty decent job at aping those masculine characteristics.

"A young broad called in the other day wondering what she could do to motivate her live-in stud to do his share. She was shacking up with this dude, giving him free sex, working a full-time job to pay her share of the bills, and picking up the slack with the rent after he quit his job to stay home and play video games all day."

Honestly, the takeaway from this is 'at least she hasn't married the guy' not 'if only she'd married him, things would be different.' Does anyone, the silly wench involved included, think tying the knot is magically gonna turn this guy into a good husband? Marriage doesn't protect you from bad relationship choices, it just makes it harder to kick the clown to the curb.

What's pathetic is your Brokeback husband sending his wife as his proxy.

I'm afraid you are clueless as to what has occurred. I asked my husband to help me make sure the comment section on my blog didn't become another place for gammas to whine and moan about women while calling me exceptional - I do not allow for beta orbiters, nor do I have the patience to sift through the same 10 men's comments cut and paste on every.single.thread.

The series you've become obsessed with has been quite successful.

That you are pathetic is not me flaunting sexual power over you, it's looking like objective fact at this point.

The comment section has been filled with the same attitude towards men normally found in the pages of Jezebel or Salon. Where have all the good men gone? That somehow, men are *required* to marry a woman, and have children and prop up the system for the rest of their lives. And not just any woman! Nooo, it has to be an American woman, or you are naughtybadevil.

Then of course, the accusations of homosexuality, commands to man up and marry,(those sluts is implied) sniping at my masculinity, and the semantic gamesmanship. Seriously, about the only feminist standard insult I have not seen is neckbeard shots. All standard fare.

I am not even a MGHOW, but rather a future expatriate. Just leaving the country is enough to make me a Satanist heathen--which I am not sure if that works; a Satanist would believe in God, just not worship Him--because I am not saving American women. The SD/Sigyn/Carlotta crowd seems to think that I owe something to somebody who is not me.

I have no problem dispensing advice and guidance to those that are wanting. Even if that advice is how to make it in the USA. I will not be silent and stand by while they try to drop obligation around the necks of men. The help is getting uppity, and they need to be put in their place. Without moral agency, they need guidance and control. That is not being provided by their men, so I am acting as a dissenting voice. Men have two opinions that they have to consider: theirs, and God's.

SD says "I asked my husband to help me make sure the comment section on my blog didn't become another place for gammas to whine and moan about women while calling me exceptional - I do not allow for beta orbiters"

/writes a blog series attempting to shame MGTOW where the only ones who agree are Beta Orbiters and White Knights./

You're absolutely brilliant. Hear that guys?!? If you agree with SD in her comments then you aren't a Beta Orbiter or a White Knight!!

I really couldn't come up with such creative ways to contradict myself if I tried. And for reference, throwing Gamma out as an insult is clearly the Manosphere version of "You can't get laid!" often heard from Feminists wanting to shame men.

She may get the long knives of the sisterhood, but it's only because they'll pay attention due to her being a woman. Any man writing this book would be dismissed as a misogynist before the ink was dry on the first press run.

Well, hard to solve a problem worrying about what names the people creating the problem might call you. Besides, the Sisterhood already calls every man a misogynist and rapist anyway, even the scalizied white knighters.

AR what a pathetic demon puppet you are! Please show where "Biblically" she IS a whore. I await verse and chapter you pathetic little whiner.

Why you care about the sexual past of some random women on the internet is beyond creepy. That you would attempt to correct her morally is pathetic indeed. Unless you are actually a Christian, you have no standing.

So lets go. Chapter and verse!

As for me wishing to upsurp your "male authority" again, IDIOT, unless you are my Husband and a Christian you have no claim of authority over me or anyone else.

Why don't you stop trolling and start working out. You spouting off that us women need to submit to your authority is hysterical, not going to happen and you have no authority to stand on.

The biggest issue is not the insult. It is when someone makes a point and tries to have a rational discussion, and the Umbranati come out of the shadows to make their contribution. Which invariably ends up being a Churchian rehashing of feminist talking points. "PERMAVIRGIN!!!" and more like it. Jack Amok has something to add, like his call to arms. Josh is just copypasting "yur gammu lowl" at the end of each post. Shut up, and let the men talk. Girls, this means you. You are not adding value to the discussion, so sit this one out.

It is when someone makes a point and tries to have a rational discussion, and the Umbranati come out of the shadows to make their contribution.

What are you afraid of? On Vox's blogs arguments are taken on their merit and succeed or fail based on that alone. If the 'Umbranati' are so wrong, they will be exposed by their own words. Vox will often expose the rabbit mindset by supplying them with rope to hang themselves. I do have to say though, the quality of discussion is higher at VP than here.

Girls, this means you. You are not adding value to the discussion, so sit this one out.

No. This is Vox's blog. On here I answer to him. Elsewhere, God and my husband. Seriously, it's not that hard to scroll by comments you don't like. There are plenty of posts not adding value to the discussion and it's not just 'the help'.

But these MGOTW have so little imagination that they can't think of anything else to do but sit down and chant "you can't make me, la-la-la." Obviously contributing to the Feminist Imperative is the wrong thing to do, but saying "I'm taking my balls and going home" is a pretty fucking wimpy response.

Going on strike is a passive-aggressive response. It's for losers and pussies. Sure, it's better than blindly supporting Teh Evilz Wymyn, but are you really so unimaginative you can't envision a better option? A masculine one?

Aw, crap this is depressing. I need a drink. Nate, you got any Oban? Bulleit? Appleton 12 y/o rum?

Well Jack the Pussie, since I've now placed your ages as probably a Greatest Tard, since you have had a life easier than anyone that came after you in America ever had, and were part of the generation that threw everything away, why do you deserve to tell me anything you piece of shit?

Cause you had it easier than me, Jack? Is that why? The "strength" you built up with your easy life?

Or how about the fact that you and your fucking friends are the REAL LOSERS who let this all happen? Does your tremendous failure in letting this mess happen in the first place why I should listen to you?

You are a greed, entitled old piece of shit and I don't care what idiot crap you have to say.

Why is everyone pissed at jack? He's gonna man up and marry that slut. And he's going kiss that dick slurping mouth like a real man. He's not backing down like a pussy. That's what the Bible tells him to do.

"I believe they are referring to enjoying the benefits of civilization without perpetuating it into the next generation. By not building the foundation for the future, you are not doing your part. A slaveowner's view of the world, where part of your property belongs to others, extracted by force. You "owe" society whatever it can extract from you, and you get no say in this obligation."

I would probably agree with what you and Jack Amok wrote about the vocation of men, but persuading MarkyMark of a different vision of life is going to take more than a comments in a combox. As long as he pulls his own weight in this society, though, I wouldn't say he's leeching off civilization. Rather he is rebelling against what passes as "civilization," the political and economic system perpetuated by the few.

, but persuading MarkyMark of a different vision of life is going to take more than a comments in a combox

Oh, I'm not trying to persuade MarkyMark. I'm just pointing out being an ambitionless slacker isn't very impressive. But you're wrong about this:

Rather he is rebelling against what passes as "civilization,"

He isn't rebelling. He's indulging. He's feeding at the trough just like the feminist HR minions getting paid to teach mandatory diversity sessions. Celebrating him for figuring out how to game the system is exactly the same as celebrating a woman for divorce-raping her husband. She figured out how to game the system too. Are you cheering for MarkyMark just because he's on Team XY instead of Team XX?

Me, I figure he's on Team Nihilist more than he's on Team XY. That's why I don't root for him.

Rebelling against something means bring it down. Seeking to destroy it and replace it with something else. MarkyMark and his chill job aren't doing that.

Since uber-Alphas down to the lowliest gamma can act as White Knights, no. White Knighting is a behavior and can be stopped at any time.

So it's not an insult to call someone a white knight if they are acting like one. So logically it's not an insult to call someone a gamma if they're acting like one. "

So an alpha is only an alpha when he is engaged in sex but when he is sleeping, eating, working, (anything other than not in the act of sex) he is acting like someone who cant get laid (um, is he fucking now?) so he must be a white knight or gamma since those guys dont get sex, and the alpha is acting like them so is one of them....until he is in the act of sex.

Gamma=sexlessWhiteknight=brain fucked up/no reason to think and act that way. You can be "alpha" to zeta, its a mentality thing

Vox is probably elbow-deep in the world of Selenoth at the moment (it is to be hoped, if we're ever getting the next tome), but just a reminder that all Anonymous comments are subject to deletion. So assuming the Anonymous replying to people is not spam, please pick any name.

And is no one other than Vox authorized on here to delete spam? Though some of the garbled attempts to appear legitimate are quite humorous...

"He isn't rebelling. He's indulging. He's feeding at the trough just like the feminist HR minions getting paid to teach mandatory diversity sessions. Celebrating him for figuring out how to game the system is exactly the same as celebrating a woman for divorce-raping her husband. She figured out how to game the system too. Are you cheering for MarkyMark just because he's on Team XY instead of Team XX?

Me, I figure he's on Team Nihilist more than he's on Team XY. That's why I don't root for him.

Rebelling against something means bring it down. Seeking to destroy it and replace it with something else. MarkyMark and his chill job aren't doing that."

He's probably not a nihilist - his meaning of life is simply different from yours. Now he may still be a wage slave or subject to the masters of the system, but at least he is questioning things and claiming some control over his life.

As for getting him to give a sh*t about something greater than himself, first he needs to perceive that there is actually something greater than himself. Saying that he should work for the betterment of a community or for fraternity is empty, when no such thing exists.

As for getting him to give a sh*t about something greater than himself, first he needs to perceive that there is actually something greater than himself. Saying that he should work for the betterment of a community or for fraternity is empty, when no such thing exists.

It is ironic that the smaller the man, the harder it is for him to imagine something larger than himself.

I'm a data-driven guy and not an ideologue. The data seem to suggest a higher bad-wife-divorce/frivorce rate than he was suggesting so I looked into the numbers and found they were at least double of what he was claiming, in terms of the eventual frivorce rate of ever married men.

I don't think that it's a small problem on the one hand. Certainly not one that should be dismissed. OTOH, I don't think most marriages will either end in divorce or frivorce.

I think it's important to have an accurate understanding of both the nature and the size of the problem as a starting point to knowing what actions should be taken.

Jack's got more tarded explaining:He isn't rebelling. He's indulging. He's feeding at the trough just like the feminist HR minions getting paid to teach mandatory diversity sessions. Celebrating him for figuring out how to game the system is exactly the same as celebrating a woman for divorce-raping her husband. She figured out how to game the system too. Are you cheering for MarkyMark just because he's on Team XY instead of Team XX?

Well Jack, here is the thing. You are either stupid or a liar. Actually, why not both?

The standard stupid, brutal, mean, lying American strawboss? I got that right, punk? You a strawboss? If it looks like a strawboss and talks like a strawboss then it probably is a strawboss.

Divorce whore is doing something all of society tell her to do.

Marky is doing something all of society tell him not to do.

The difference is courage. Of course, courage isn't a virtue to a strawboss as it causes disturbances among his slaves.

Sensei said... Vox is probably elbow-deep in the world of Selenoth at the moment (it is to be hoped, if we're ever getting the next tome), but just a reminder that all Anonymous comments are subject to deletion.

Goodness Whatever, you're really worked up over this. It's so... touching that get so emotional about the subject. Well, I understand, sometimes it's all just so overwhelming, you want to lash out. The world can be such a hurtful place.

This book 'Men on Strike' has got excellent subject matter. It does mirror and parrot parts of my new book published last year in the fall of 2012 entitled "THE BACHELOR'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY!" which stipulates that there are many valid reasons why men are delaying getting married, fatherhood, or having children or simply skipping that rite of passage altogether. My book goes into great detail about how being a "Retro American Bachelor" is the new 'promised land' and 'American Dream' shared by many western men today. You can find "THE BACHELOR'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY!" at Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com as well as other fine bookstores and media outlets. - Author Von Lars

Had a huge bust up with my partner Gerry, phoned Dr.obodo in tears, he said he could help, I must admit, I was very, very sceptical as didn't really believe he would be back after all he said, but it was just a few days when he phoned and asked to come over to talk, we talked and talked and the silly misunderstaning was all forgiven and we are back together now for good, all thanks to Dr.obodo, I would highly recommend his services, they do really, really work.Here is Info: templeofanswer@hotmail.co.uk or Cell: +2348155425481Lynda, Devon.